PUSHPENDRA TIWARI S/O SHRI RAMAYAN TIWARI vs CHOLAMANDLAM INVESTMENT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED on 28 October 2026


<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="218 224 333 236">28.10.2026</th><th data-bbox="333 224 745 236">M.A. No.- 29/2026</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td data-bbox="218 236 333 851">Sr. No.14<br/><br/>Present :</td><td data-bbox="333 236 745 851"><p>Mr. Amit Garg, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant appeared through virtual mode.</p><p>Mr. Vipul Saraswat, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent appeared through virtual mode.</p><p>Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that in this case, the stay application of the Applicant in SA No. 927/2026 was finally heard and disposed of by this Tribunal vide its order dated 31/08/2026, wherein a conditional order was passed directing the Applicant to deposit 50% of the total outstanding amount before the date of possession and the remaining 50% amount within a specified period. However, due to some financial constraints, the Applicant was unable to comply with the said order. Consequently, a review petition has been filed seeking an extension of time to deposit the overdue amount and restraining the Respondent from taking physical possession of the secured asset, which is scheduled for 28/10/2026.</p><p>Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the Applicant's Counsel has not placed the true facts before this Tribunal. The matter of fact is that after passing of the order dated 31/08/2026, the Applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of <b>Writ Petition No. 41830/2026</b>, wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that the order dated 31/08/2026 is an appealable order and that the Applicant ought to have filed an appeal against the same, and disposed of the petition accordingly vide order dated 08/10/2026.</p><p>After that, in place of moving the Hon'ble DRAT, the Applicant has resorted to filing the present review application. The scope of review is very limited and pertains strictly to errors apparent on the face of the record or any clerical or arithmetical mistakes. None of these grounds were present or submitted regarding the order dated 31/08/2026, and this review application is, in effect, a memorandum of appeal disguised as a review application. The Applicant cannot be permitted to play with the provisions of law.</p><p>This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against its own order, and if the Miscellaneous Application (MA) of the Applicant is entertained, it would amount to this Tribunal hearing an appeal</p></td></tr></tbody></table>

✓

against its own order, which is impermissible in law.

Accordingly, this Tribunal finds no merit in MA No. 29/2026 filed by the Applicant, and the same is hereby dismissed.